AFF morals. What is not OK.

[JohnK]

If you’re referring to reporting illegal activities I understand but reporting legal loopholes, even if they are being abused will not help those playing by the rules because those loopholes will be closed faster for everyone.

Not necessarily. Qantas mall won't stop issuing points but larger transactions may attract closer scrutiny.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

People who play by the rules are the ones that miss out. I don't hesitate for 1 minute to inform businesses/airlines if I feel some promotion is abused. I will continue to do so. But in my experience they don't care enough to do anything about it until the abuse gets out of control.

Wow!

Sorry but this smacks of self-interest and envy and your attitude as to what is playing by the rules seems to be very flexible. From what I have read you are happy enough to work the system to gain higher status, cheaper Qantas flights etc, but if it is a promo, loophole etc that you cannot, or will not do, them it seems it then somehow becomes a rort.

I also assume that you must never have bought a "mistake" airfare or hotel room, used Qantas Vouchers to avoid booking/credit card fees, etc etc? Let alone aspects that are actually against the rules such as not declaring all dutiable items on entry to Australia, or even taking scores of plastic bags vs one or two.

Virtually all promotions and items subject to variable pricing will have a bell curve of benefits available to the buyer. I personally intend to be as often as possible in that part of the bell curve which delivers the maximum benefit.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Not necessarily. Qantas mall won't stop issuing points but larger transactions may attract closer scrutiny.

So it is ok as long as you gain the benefit, but is not ok if someone is gaining more benefit???

Your idea of a rort seems to be determined on what you can get rather than if it is a rort a or not.

 

[Denali]

..... . I don't hesitate for 1 minute to inform businesses/airlines if I feel some promotion is abused. I will continue to do so.....

I can guess which kid you were in school.

 

[k_sheep]

The line is hazy. I'm the first to jump on mistake fares - it's one of the biggest thrills in traveling for me! But I never expect them to stick, and don't whinge or moan if they get pulled; it's a "win some, lost some" game. I have a moment of disappointment, then start looking for the next opportunity.

I'm too lazy to "optimise" a lot of the tricks - gift cards, most credit card churning etc. Not morally against it by any means though.

Family pooling scams, returning of things with no intention to keep - that's at the black end of "black and white", no grey zone there!

 

[JohnK]

So it is ok as long as you gain the benefit, but is not ok if someone is gaining more benefit???

Your idea of a rort seems to be determined on what you can get rather than if it is a rort a or not.

Up to you.

I and a lot of other people used to gain a small benefit out of Visa One and VPay cards until people decided it was OK to purchase during the Harvey Norman promotions with 24 cards until Harvey Norman got angry and now no one benefits or even paying $60,000 ATO $100 at a time.

Now I don't get anything. According to you I should be ecstatic for them and move on? Seriously?

Leave me alone. I'm not here to play games.

 

[burmans]

Personally I don't see that much greyness here, most promos have very clear T&Cs and are also clear on who has authority to enforce those T&Cs. The airlines/hotel chains etc. do have a right to enforce those T&Cs.

So far it's pretty clear. The problem starts to arise either when a) for various reasons they don't actually enforce the T&Cs or b) people start to make transactions in a way that some on this forum set themselves up as moral arbiters as not being in the spirit of the promotion.

My views on these two scenarios are fact based based on T&Cs being a legal agreement, in case a) the T&Cs gives certain people the right to give points under a certain set of rules but it also gives THEM the obligation to do so (I'm not the one who allocates points, the airline/hotel chain does). They may also have a right to recoup points in certain circumstances and/or close/freeze an account but only if/where those T&Cs actually allow this. There are only two parties under most T&Cs, the party giving the points and the party receiving, John and or others are not party to this agreement and have no business interfering in it.

In case b) legally the T&Cs as written are the only basis for the agreement, there is always plenty of speculation by people on here who were not a party to the agreement nor had a part in writing it. This is where the problem starts, when these individuals think they have some insights into what was intended and based on this for some Eason feel they have a moral obligation to set us right. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but in this case there is rarely any basis for this, which is why many treat these options with a fair degree on contempt!

 

[Dr Ralph]

Where is the line? For each of us?

There's a line?

 

[samh004]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

So far it's pretty clear. The problem starts to arise when ... people start to make transactions in a way that some on this forum set themselves up as moral arbiters as not being in the spirit of the promotion.

I've taken advantage of my fair share of promotions or deals that had loose T&C or were clear mistakes. I've had pushback in the former situation on occasion, but not so much on the latter. Examples include:

• OnePath Insurance – didn't need to hold the policy very long per T&C to receive points;
• Assure Insurance – didn't need to hold the policy very long per T&C to receive points;
• Storage King – no limit on contracts for storage/small minimum policy length per T&C to receive points;
• Woolworths Macro range – no limit on purchases, some did better than others in capitalising on cat food;
• Qantas discounted J redemption to Japan – simple mistake fare that was honoured.

In most of these cases, the T&C were tightened significantly following the first group of people who took advantage, but it was all fair by the rules.

Technically I believe a lot of referrals for credit cards state they are for family and friends and not to be shared on websites... I guess we'll overlook the referral subsection.

The issue becomes who gets to judge what is and isn't acceptable. More often than not we have members who are quick to set themselves up as judge. This is highlighted just a few posts before me when a member said they go out of their way to inform on others, yet I am sure the old adage about glass houses must ring true for many members on AFF.

 

[sjk]

I and a lot of other people used to gain a small benefit out of Visa One and VPay cards until people decided it was OK to purchase during the Harvey Norman promotions with 24 cards until Harvey Norman got angry and now no one benefits or even paying $60,000 ATO $100 at a time.

So what is the 'n' where 'n' is OK but 'n+1' is not?

Special understanding should be granted when it comes to matters involving the ATO, in my opinion.

 

[juddles]

I actually do not think it should be so hard to determine where a "line" should be.

In my belief, there is a very distinct (and recognizable) difference between taking advantage of a poorly designed offer, and finding a way to actively rob due to a failure in the systems that the provider has.

If an entity ABC offers X points per credit card purchase, then finding a way to make 1c purchases is, in my book, a stretch of the friendship, but not fraudulent.

But as per a recent thread, when people discover that if they buy something and get X points, then know that if they return the item that they get the points despite not paying ANYTHING, then this is a scam.

Maybe it is too subtle a difference for some, but in this latter case the actions are so deliberately false that it aggrieves me that this forum is used as the medium to perfect these thefts.

I love cheap fares. I love when I can discover city-pairs that gain me cheap good seats. I get when you can buy cash with your credit card and earn points. But I do not like scams.

 

[pagingjoan]

JohnK:
I am genuinely interested in an answer to my earlier question at Post #19.
Would you care to expand on your statement?

 

[RooFlyer]

I actually do not think it should be so hard to determine where a "line" should be. <snip for space>

Absolutely nailed it, juddles.

 

[samh004]

I need to borrow your perfect summation again @burmans: "some on this forum set themselves up as moral arbiters".

But as per a recent thread, when people discover that if they buy something and get X points, then know that if they return the item that they get the points despite not paying ANYTHING, then this is a scam.

Maybe it is too subtle a difference for some, but in this latter case the actions are so deliberately false that it aggrieves me that this forum is used as the medium to perfect these thefts.

 

[RooFlyer]

I need to borrow your perfect summation again @burmans: "some on this forum set themselves up as moral arbiters".

You may also care to refresh yourself as to the topic of the thread : "AFF morals. What is not OK."

Personally, I don't see any 'arbitration' in what you quoted. Was there any? Big difference between an arbiter and an opinion-giver, eh?

 

[juddles]

I need to borrow your perfect summation again @burmans: "some on this forum set themselves up as moral arbiters".

Seeing you quote me, I assume that there is some connection in your words and me. I do NOT set myself up as a "moral arbiter". I am just expressing my personal opinion. My opinion that certain scams stink is expressed due to my love of this forum. People who use the forum to perfect scams like the return of goods, in my opinion, cheapen this forum as a whole.

I felt the departure of Red Roo very sorely - was an amazing aspect of this forum to have them present. But it appears to me now (again - just my opinion - never as a moral arbiter) that despite all the conjecture on why Red Roo disappeared, how could they remain in a a forum where the admin is now actively backing clearly immoral scams??

 

[support]

how could they remain in a a forum where the admin is now actively backing clearly immoral scams??

The Australian Frequent Flyer is a public discussion board. We do not censor content posted by members unless it breaches the Terms of Service. Just because one member's post contradicts another's beliefs does not make the post or opinion of the member incorrect or in need of censorship by the moderators.

A lot of what you wrote in that thread was conjecture, your opinion of what the OP had done. It was not based on fact, it was based on opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but I believe you made your point in that thread early on.

Again, you have posted opinion. This time you are accusing me of 'actively backing clearly immoral scams'. I have not done so, all I have done is allowed a discussion to continue where a member of this website asked if anyone else had received an email from Qantas about a specific issue. That thread did not breach our guidelines, no matter how much it breaches your beliefs.

I am going to end this discussion here and allow the thread to get back on the topic of "AFF Morals... what is not OK?". Any further off topic discussion may be moved, removed or result in disciplinary action. You have been warned.

 

[sjk]

Personally, I don't see any 'arbitration' in what you quoted. Was there any? Big difference between an arbiter and an opinion-giver, eh?

Wouldn't 'arbitration' be the domain of an 'arbitrator' rather than an 'arbiter'?

All seems a bit arbitrary, anyway.

 

[RooFlyer]

Pretty much the same meaning

 

[juddles]

Wouldn't 'arbitration' be the domain of an 'arbitrator' rather than an 'arbiter'?

All seems a bit arbitrary, anyway.

I wish I could comment on this but unfortunately it seems I cannot....